Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Self-Moderated NO-FUD discussion thread. (Read 2404 times)

I wonder if this board can do much. I mean there was already TheSwede who should keep contact with Sam. It didnt work because Sam didnt inform him correctly. So why should this change now with 10 persons waiting? I dont really see it.
On the other hand... if these 10 persons really have knowledge they could provide real help to sam.

I dont have the skills for judging there, i would like to provide help though im not sure if i could be any help. But my main concern is if these 10 people will get a better contact than theswede.

I definitely don't want a "board of cheerleaders" but rather a board of people who can look at the situation critically and also look at what's going "inside" the company and keep in contact with people who are actually running things when sam is unreachable.



I'd also really like to see someone actually on the ground in HK/SZ who can hopefully go visit these places and see what's going on.

For all interested in taking part of this, "committee," please come to the #Labcoin channel today around 2000 UTC / 4pm EST. We are looking for people who can actually contribute, not just big share holders. Similar to Radiumsoup's post.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence I don't think I could bring the right skills to the table, once a product is ready to go to market then I can and will be willing to assist with sales, but I feel we really need tech skills to help here.

Now you guys may laugh at my suggestion, but do think it through first before knee-jerking a 'NO!".

What about TMAN? 

He's tenatious and very, very keen to see Labcoin succeed. 

+1 It could be very useful to have one Italian trusted forum member as well. Agath seems to also have enough tech knowledge

yes to radiumsoup and ytterbium

To add, Agath seems to be adept at getting in touch with the Tatti's. Maybe he'd be your "inside Italian"?

I just hope that this doesn't go the way of the ActM board.  Oh, and thank you for creating this thread... now to figure out how to keep it from appearing on my "Show new replies to your posts." list.

ROFLMAO 

not blaming you though for this self-moderated thread, i was defending these clown ass labcoin operation until couple of weeks ago but I couldn't keep my head in sand any more and hope that labcoin will one day have a constructive discussion with the community while most investors lost a lot of money. With labcoin's track record as is, this is just magical wishful thinking!!!!

I'd like to nominate radiumsoup and ytterbium (who spotted the thermal issue from a photo).  I'd also like theseven to join if he's willing.  If not, I'd like to see his paid involvement with the company increase.

Yes, lets get this going and finalized ASAP.

I agree with this except for the part of major shareholders only. I say this as there are several people out there that wish to see Labcoin succeed and may have little to no shares at all. We should look at them as to what they are able to contribute to the group as a whole. There are talks regarding this on the #labcoin channel as well.

Excellent post radiumsoup.

At this point probablly any major shareholder who thinks they can add a bit of experience into the mix should be eligible for the Board and be immediately assigned. We shouldn't labour the decision - it should be made promptly to give the earliest assistance to the company.

So anyone have the time and some relevant experience?

Marketing, web design, legal, electronics, accounting - all relevant areas.

I think it was a good idea to have some sort of shareholder representation, but I agree that "advisory board" is not the best way to think of the group. It should be something more along the lines of "shareholder representatives" or something. The problem with the idea of keeping Sam accountable is that shareholders have no real power - unless and until we can prove his identity (which he is loathe to do) and keep him accountable under pain of actual legal action. So we can't really form a "board of directors" (in the traditional meaning) that Sam would report to, because it's not like we can fire him. Then again, he's probably even LESS likely now to give us his real identity because people are starting to go after Tatti by way of his employer. (Whether or not Sam is actually Tatti is irrelevant to this, as I believe either he is and he's pissed off that his employer is being contacted, or he's not and he's scared to see what Tatti is going through.)

We can say that we "require" him to do certain things, but it has no teeth, unfortunately. We can give him ultimatums, but what can *actually* be done about it that has real world consequences for him unless we have proof of identity? It all boils down to Sam's intent. If he wants to see the project succeed, he should be willing to hear input from a group of people who are better able to solve the problems he's running into - and he must trust that group of people to give him sound advice without fear of getting arrested or accosted in the street even after giving a good-faith effort. If this is the case going forward, we need to have thoughtful, deliberate, and rational people working to ensure they understand the big picture as well as the individual issues that are coming up on an ongoing basis.

If, however, he does not intend for the project to succeed, then he already has all the bitcoins, and we still don't know with any reliable amount of certainty who the real person is behind the keyboard. He's going to simply walk, and it won't matter what kind of machinations we go through to try and keep him accountable.

So, this is my viewpoint:
We form a group of 5 or so volunteers/nominees (no more than 10 in any case) who agree to meet regularly with each other, and also with Sam to discuss problems facing the project. There should be at least one EE on board, or at minimum someone with real experience with actual ASIC development. There should be a few people who understand business management, and at least one person with project management experience. This group should include at least one person who considers this a scam, and at least one person who considers this a sure thing. We need to have a balance of opinion here so that all sides are considered. Can't lose sight of the crazies, because sometimes they actually have a good point to make.

The group should meet at least weekly on their own, without Sam, to discuss what should happen during the following meeting with Sam. When the group meets with Sam, the meeting should cover past project goals, issues that have come up since the last meeting, and the plan for the next week, 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days. Assuming Sam wants the project to succeed, this should not only keep him accountable, but also give him a way to offload/outsource (sorry, couldn't help myself there) assistance from the shareholders.

Is that an agreeable format?

Either way, nominations/volunteers should be considered within the next 24 hours.

IMO, labcoin (whoever that is) should be required to actually do one or two of the things promised in the Q&A prior to everyone wasting time forming a committee. (I also think you should refer to it as an advisory committee, rather than a board.)

If labcoin can't be bothered to follow through on a few simple promises as proof of good faith, the entire committee idea may be a ruse.

So -  what about a board? are there any volunteers? should we agree on a minimum share holding & some relevant experience requirements?

This thread is most welcome and should allow for constructive discussion free from the noise associated with those intent on hunting down the so called scammers.

I found last night's IRC interview a welcome development but was left under the impression that Labcoin Sam was a little too quick to agree to all the requests being made of him.

The TO-DO list is excellent and there should be no let up in ensuring Sam works his way through it.